In the 180-year history of the two-document hypothesis, one idea has remained relatively unchanged – that the non-Markan source for Matthew's and Luke's gospels was a sayings or speech collection. This article surveys the history of scholarship and demonstrates that most of the assumptions that went into this genre identification have since been abandoned. Only three assumptions are still held today: that Q is roughly equivalent to the double tradition, that narrative elements in the double tradition are insignificant, and that Q did not narrate Jesus' death. This article highlights the problems with each of these assumptions and suggests that Q was likely a narrative gospel similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, though it gave more weight to the words of Jesus. By questioning these assumptions, a different picture of Matthew’s and Luke’s second source emerges.